From anarchy to new world advertising - The Bubble project

What started out as an anti-advertising campaign now has the potential to take ads closer to consumers. Far from being subversive, the Bubble project is now the way forward. Ji Lee (artist and art director) was the founder of the project in New York in 2002. It’s original aim was to “counterattack the one-sided corporate onslaught of marketing and advertisement messages that propagate public space”.

Ok, heavy socio-political stuff but we need people to challenge us. To do this he printed 15,000 stickers, die cut into the shape of speech bubbles, and started pasting them onto posters around New York. The passing public then started to add comments to these blank bubbles. He photographed them and posted them on the web. By filling in the bubbles, consumers were engaging in the project and transforming “the corporate monologue into an open dialogue”. In the world of social networking and community engagement this is a brilliant idea. But as a brand you can see it two ways.

Old school – you are defacing my ad. New school – you are ‘enfacing’ my ad. (Enfacing is a new street term for taking something dull and making it more interesting – look it up on Facebook). The idea has spread globally and in the UK you can join it through Facebook (type in The Bubble Project (UK) into groups). In 2006 Ji published a book on the ~Bubble project called 'Talkback'. Ironically, rather than attacking advertising he was embracing the new era of advertising. His actions are making the more innovative minds in adland think. The idea that consumers can interact with ads is the way forward. We are living in the world of ‘co-creation’ and ‘collective thinking’.

The old creative team of art director and copywriter is being replaced by consumer creativity and a creative director who filters, develops and manages the ideas. Have a look at what Facegroup are doing. The idea that we just talk AT the public is fast becoming an outdated and irrelevant idea. As a concept this will freak out many brands and agencies, but the few that want to be progressive will more than likely embrace this as a concept. In fact I think it’s only a matter of time before we see a campaign for a top brand like Coke that looks like it’s a victim of the Bubble project but is in fact manipulating it. Those bubbles on the poster are designed to create social comment.

And why not? Shouldn’t our customers have a voice? Back in the late 90’s when I was at McCann’s we developed a concept for Coke that allowed the public to make their message more important than Coke’s. At the time this was seen as too progressive. Today it’s acceptable. The Bubble project may seem like a bit of fun, or even anarchist, but it’s more significant than that. What it really signifies is that the consumer is now in control, not the brands. And as a consequence the role of agencies as the ideas creator is now questionable.

Why ethics is more important to brands in a recession.

“There’s a recession on, so no ones going to be interested in ethics”, was a comment I heard recently from one client (whose business is suffering). Let’s call him Mr Magoo, short sighted and heading for a crash.

He is totally wrong, and even though his business is in the financial arena, his dismissal of exploring ethics as a value that he could be using to drive new sales is narrow minded at the least, and damaging to his company as the worse.

In areas like banking and insurance, where there is little to differentiate one company from another, ethics can be a strong emotional differentiator. If we have to pick between two products, similar price, similar offer, who wouldn’t pick the one that emotionally makes us feel better. After all, branding is about emotional content and building trust. And ethics is a great way to build trust fast. I’d be very worried as a shareholder of Mr Magoo’s company. His sales are down and I will predict they will slide further.

He will try and compete on price but there’s always someone cheaper. He’ll try promotions, but that’s a desperate way and means giving away margin. Instead he could do what wise marketing men do, add value.

A recent report, the Elderman Goodpurpose study, should make enlightening reading to any marketer. Far from abandoning good causes in a recession we not only stick by them but gather together and can be more socially aware. You only have to look at any disaster or crisis to see that human beings unite when there’s a common enemy (recession in this case). 71% of global consumers said they were sticking to supporting good causes, and many said they were giving more.

The pound (or zen, dollar, franc or euro) in your pocket can say a lot about what people feel and think especially when the consumer is using it to make a point. 68% of people said they’d remain loyal to a brand that supported good causes in rough times (good causes can be anything from charity to environment). 55% of people will buy from a brand that supports a good cause, despite costing more. And 80% think it’s important that brands support good causes.

Consumers are sticking by the ethics but what about businesses? Alas, many see environmentalism as a nice to have rather than a need to have. Saving the planet is cut as soon as the company wants to save money. In the U.S. many marketing directors admitted that ethics was not top of their list any more. Even without the recession we are living in a time when community is growing in part due to the internet and in part to a feeling that society has become divided and people want to get back together (a trend spotted by recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics).

Community is a very important ethic and because brands need to engage both individuals and communities they cannot ignore it. Adding community based values is a great way to engage consumers on mass. There is a difference between ‘value’ and ‘values’. One is about what you get for your money, the other is why you do what you do. Big corporates that abuse people and the planet, companies that put profits first and are driven just by greed and shareholder value are out. Consumers are looking for the ethos behind the brand, and the ethos is the reason why a company does what it does.

Consumers want to know that a company isn’t just driven by money, we are almost returning to the era of Quaker businesses. The blame for the recession has been laid on those that were greedy and were only interested in money. We are entering a new more spirital age where people are embracing new values. Just as pre revolution France became divided by values – the rich vs the poor, so we are starting to see a similar divide in society between those whose only value is profit and those that see profit as an outcome of having people and planet values.

A quote from an old article on ethical business in America reads, “making money by being emoral is short sighted because you’ll soon be found out. Making money by being moral will mean you’ll succeed long term”. We have been living in an age of short sightedness, like Mr Magoo we haven’t been looking far enough ahead to make the right decisions.

Remember when brands wrote 5 year planes? Instead, the temptation is to chase the short term blip on the sales line. Many brands have become so reactive they have little time to be proactive.

Yet a long term view and an open mind is exactly what will help most brands through a recession. Ignorance is a dangerous thing, especially when it’s based on assumptions. And assumptions seems to be the basis of much marketing these days. Following conventional wisdom has two problems, one, being conventional is a good way to get left behind by the consumer and second, what we think is wisdom rarely is.

Those who think that a recession means consumers have stopped caring about ethics will be the first against the wall when the recession ends.